Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:18 UTC, submitted by adel
X11, Window Managers Seth Nickell posted some screenshots and videos showing the experimental Luminocity window manager & Cairo which enable a XOrg-based desktop to get accelerated GL eye candy graphics. update: more here.
Order by: Score:
"catches up"?
by AdamW on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:25 UTC

This version of X.org and this window manager are available for anyone now, legally. Seth has step-by-step instructions on how to download and use them. So how does that count as 'catching up' to a product which we can't legally use for another, at least, year?

v this trend is questionable...
by Andi on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:26 UTC
...
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:27 UTC

Looks really good.

Workspace swithc
by Andreas on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:27 UTC

The wobble is just a demo of what's possible cause no one could use that effect and keep their sanity. But the workspace switch effect was nice and all in all it looked semi-smooth even to move windows while gimp was loading.

RE: "catches up"?
by Jon on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:28 UTC

Longhorn had that for more than a year (even for their beta testers only) and Mac OS X has this for 2-3 years now. Market-wise, XOrg catches up to Mac OS X only. But technology-wise, XOrg is third.

v nice
by Andi on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:32 UTC
@Jon
by Rayiner Hashem on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:34 UTC

If we're going to be pedantic, EVAS has had an OpenGL-accelerated canvas since 2001...

Re: "catches up"?
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:41 UTC

Considering that Xorg with Composite/Xcompmgr is buggy as hell (and I can't imagine how buggy is the new GL server + Cairo), yes, by the time Longhorn will be out maybe this stuff will be usable.

Re: "catches up"?
by Andre4s on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:45 UTC

Linux will always be the under dog.

Re: "catches up"?
by Jon on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:46 UTC

And everyone likes to favor the under dogs... That's what people do.

RE: Re: "catches up"?
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:48 UTC

"Considering that Xorg with Composite/Xcompmgr is buggy as hell"

Ive been running it full time on my system and it works great!

Nvidia 5600 256MB / Driver 1.0-7167
Xorg 6.8.2
xcompmgr v1.1.1
Gnome 2.10.0

xcompmgr -cCfF -r7 -o.65 -l-10 -t-8 -D7 &

Im trying to compile XGL and waimea ATM. ;)


...
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:48 UTC

Is this the guy Novell hired to work with GTK and Cairo fulltime?

...
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:50 UTC

never mind, he works for red hat.

One last try.
by Andi on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:51 UTC

This is good from a technological point of view, i just hope the communtiy is still focused on functionality. Eyecandy is eyecandy - it's nice for the eyes and that's all. Please don't repeat the mistakes Apple does nowadays: Eyecandy dominates functionality.

v Nghgh.
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:52 UTC
RE:...
by Anonymous on Wed 23rd Mar 2005 23:53 UTC

No, Seth is a Red Hat employee.

Novell hired:

David Reveman to work on Glitz/Cairo and XGL server
Tor Lilqvist to work on Win32 GTK+ and porting Evolution

Nice to see
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:05 UTC

I'm glad to see OSS move in this direction as I thought that Longhorn would be out way before it. Of course, this still isn't "out" by my definition. Sure, I could compile it and deal with bugs and issues and such, but I'm not going to. There is a big difference between good work and a final project. Now, once Ubuntu/Fedora/etc. include it as the default or good-as-default, then it will be out.

I have a friend who thinks that this will all be done by the middle of the year. I still think that it will be a year before it's really ready for a production environment.

Why so much negativity?
by Steve Block on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:17 UTC

To all the naysayers: This is incredibly progress compared to what I have ever seen with X. I can't make use of it (Mac user and I've no plans to switch), but I can appreciate it. And those saying that Longhorn will be able to do that forget that Longhorn won't be out for over a year and is backed by one of the largest companies in the world.

Also, the "just eyecandy" viewpoint is a flawed one, as any long-term use of Mac OS X will show. Smooth graphics rendering can really make a difference in users' perception of the speed of a computer.

....
by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:17 UTC

Xcompmgr doesn't even work with Ati's binary drivers. So it seriously needs a wlot of work.

@Thom
by Brad Griffith on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:25 UTC

Or maybe ATI's drivers, which thankfully have the reputation they deserve among linux users, need work. NVidia drivers have been great in Linux for a long time and I won't buy an ATI card until they step it up.

Re: ...
by benn on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:28 UTC

Xcompmgr doesn't even work with Ati's binary drivers. So it seriously needs a wlot of work.

I agree that xcompgr needs work (It won't work with xinerama for me...), but I would suggest avoiding ATI cards...thier Linux drivers are horrible. Even their Windows drivers leave something to be desired.

@Brad
by Jon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:30 UTC

I use XOrg's r200 3D drivers (not ATI's) and the effect is the same: xcompmgr just doesn't work correctly. It's incredibly slow and buggy. And it's being like that for over 8 months...

@Thomas
by Lumbergh on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:30 UTC

Xcompmgr does work with ATI binary drivers, it's just that ATI has no Render acceleration so it's painfully slow and buggy to boot.

Re: @Brad
by benn on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:33 UTC

I use XOrg's r200 3D drivers (not ATI's) and the effect is the same: xcompmgr just doesn't work correctly. It's incredibly slow and buggy. And it's being like that for over 8 months...

Hmmm...It's very snappy with all the bells and whistles turned on with my Nvidia 5600, p4 2.4...My complaint is that I can't get it to work in xinerama... Which caused me to abandon it.

I wouldn't think it would work well with ATI cards, though...period. The Linux support is nonexistent.

Cairo rocks!
by . on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:33 UTC

Cairo rendering/smoothness is damn impressive!

xcompmgr complaints
by Roguelazer on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:36 UTC

That's not X's fault, that's ATI's. NVIDIA's drivers provide acceleration for the RENDER extension, so everything that uses it (including XCOMPOSITE) goes faster. ATI chooses not to provide RENDER acceleration, so you don't get the speed boost. Complain to them, not about X.

composite
by Lumbergh on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:36 UTC

One of the xorg developers commented that GCC 4.0 will speed up software RENDER considerably - if it's enough to be usable without hardware driver support is another story

RE: xcompmgr complaints
by Jon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:38 UTC

> Complain to them, not about X

The r200 & radeon 3D drivers (that don't work with xcompmgr) *are* developed by the DRI guys and *NOT* by ATi. So, I CAN complain about X, as they ship together.

RE: xcompmgr complaints
by Jon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:39 UTC

>that don't work with xcompmgr

That don't work "properly" that is. The whole desktop becomes very slow, and the shadows look like mud.

Hardware
by Freak on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:40 UTC

I wonder what hardware they were running this on... Somehow I think it's not a i486 with a Voodoo 1000. I am not trying to be facitious or anything! Was just wondering. I wish they could do real screen captures.

It's nice any how!!! The WOW factor is way up in this one! Great Job Seth!

...
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:42 UTC

This is the only effect that requires GL hardware acceleration in Luminocity (and not even much at that, Kristian's development machine uses an embedded Intel video card ).

Composite and Opengl
by Lumbergh on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:42 UTC

Once we start getting these OpenGL powered xservers and window managers we shouldn't have to worry about RENDER acceleration anymore. I believe these are orthogonal issues.

Problem with X
by Eric on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:43 UTC

Is the driver problem.

We still don't have enough good drivers.

I know you may yell at me but there is only one real solution , that is to SUE these companies or have gov lawyers make these companies that only support Microsoft open their tech specs up.

Impressive
by a nun, he moos on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:46 UTC

I can't wait for this to hit mainstream distros.

A lot of bang for your buck
by Lumbergh on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:53 UTC

As someone else pointed out, he was running one of those crappy i810 integrated jobbies so everybody that is using a system bought within the past 5 years will get this goodness.

Very cool
by Chris on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:54 UTC

I'm especially excited about Cairo; we should be seeing that very soon right?

Timelines
by Lumbergh on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:58 UTC

It looks like I'll be moving back to Gnome sometime in the hopefully near future after just ditching my Ubuntu Hoary partition and going to Gentoo and KDE 3.4 yesterday.

I suspect we won't see somewhat stable bleeding edge of this stuff for another 6 months though - about the time GCC 4.0 starts getting widely accepted ;)

Things are going to get very, very fast

Performance
by Marcus on Thu 24th Mar 2005 00:58 UTC

If you somehow start dragging 3-5 windows at a time, will there be a big performance hit?

RE: Performance
by Jon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:00 UTC

>start dragging 3-5 windows at a time

And how do you do that exactly?

by . on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:01 UTC

If you run Linux, do yourself a favor and get a Nvidia card with plenty of video RAM.

Neat!
by DCMonkey on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:02 UTC

Very nice.

I can only imagine what's going to happen when KDE gets a hold of this technology ;)

RE: RE: Performance
by Marcus on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:03 UTC

And how do you do that exactly?

Dunno, maybe if you open multiple windows you'll get the same effect.

RE: Problem with X
by Lumbergh on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:09 UTC

Nvidia already has great drivers. ATI is the problem. They don't offer RENDER acceleration. These problems go away with OpenGL accelerated Xservers, window managers, glitz, etc..

Those ATI guys
by Thaufer on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:14 UTC

I can't really believe ATI's tactics. All they get by not paying attention to the Linux market (and all markets other than windows) is losing customers. Nvidia has never had this kind of problem. They really care about their customers. Theres no chance I'm gonna buy another ATI card in the next decades...

xcompmgr
by circuit_breaker on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:17 UTC

xcompmgr is a testbed just like Luminocity- don't expect it to be fast or perfect.

having said that, KDE 3.4's kompmgr does an amazing job making x.org pretty and enjoyable to use. All the eyecandy crap is on and it looks neat! I really like being able to see through windows, it has already proven useful.

I have one bug to complain about, and i think it's xorg's fault. I get a corrupted display on startup (about the left 3/4's of the 2 screens I have) but a refresh cleans it up. I had this same issue on startup when first testing xorg and xcompmgr, seems to be a Xinerama specific problem.

So folks, if you run KDE 3.4 you're already there with a USABLE WM that has all of the Composite goodies (no shaky windows, though) The rest of these are sandboxes for ideas and testing..

RE: These ATI guys
by Lumbergh on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:20 UTC

ATI has different priorities than eyecandy for fanboys. The Linux desktop market is miniscule and any responsible business has priorties. This was all discussed on a recent interview over at Rage3d.com. At this point, it might not even make sense for them to work on RENDER in their drivers and just go ahead and improve the OpenGL performance on linux.

My mediocre 9600 (tweaked a bit) plays FarCry on windows at 1024x768 with lots of extra eyecandy with nice framerates. The transistors are there, just not the drivers.

2Andi
by modman on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:30 UTC

umm.. none of Apple's Eye candy hurts functionality, if anything it makes the environment more pleasant for a normal (read non geek) to work in, which reduces stress and enhances productivity.

eyecandy is grrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat!!!

Effed up widgets
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:31 UTC

Does anybody else get effed up widgets with composite on? I stopped using composite because most things would mess up as soon as a scroll upwards.

Longhorn
by Marcelo on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:35 UTC

"Considering that Xorg with Composite/Xcompmgr is buggy as hell (and I can't imagine how buggy is the new GL server + Cairo), yes, by the time Longhorn will be out maybe this stuff will be usable."


Yes, Longhorn has no bugs and its development is not late...

I prefer to wait for a eye-candy free system than buy an expensive, closed, DRM-full, bloated, patented, proprietary and buggy non-operating system like Longhorn.

Question
by dr d on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:38 UTC

I'm looking to make a purchase of a dual amd64 system and my institution requires me to order only from the 'big guys' (right now this means IBM & Sun). Anyone using the quadro FX 3000, 4000, or 4400 under linux or any problems getting xorg running on say the sun w2100z?

For all xcompmgr doesn't work
by somebody on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:40 UTC

If you use metacity. Metacity must be compiled without its own render support and composite manager

After that xcompmgr starts working as it should

Nice
by leo on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:46 UTC

I'm not sure if I'd have a use for flashy effects like that, but the videos are sure impressive.

Most importantly, it works with a puny video card like the Intel 810, as it should. All these fancy desktop effects are nothing to any post-Geforce video card.

This is why I bitched so long about the full Longhorn interface probably requiring DirectX9 capable cards. Here we see (also in OS X of course) how it can be done with far less hardware.

waimea and cairo
by walt on Thu 24th Mar 2005 01:54 UTC

Currently waimea uses cairo for creation of its features. The configuration is XML. The person that is working cairo is also the author of waimea. Once cairo becomes more stabilized he will turn his attention to waimea. That said he keeps waimea up to date with cairo system calls.

@ Leo
by vincent on Thu 24th Mar 2005 02:04 UTC

"This is why I bitched so long about the full Longhorn interface probably requiring DirectX9 capable cards. Here we see (also in OS X of course) how it can be done with far less hardware."

Thats pretty damn myopic of you.

Implementing the least scaled feature set will always use "less" in terms of resources, but this is at the cost of scalability and future enhancements. Building an infrastructure that uses and supports all of the Direct X9 specification allows for a lot more than just "wobbly windows" as hardware progresses. Unless you feel that wobbly-windows are the pinnacle of desktop "eye-candy" and visual functionality and no one would ever need anything that might benefit from vertex shaders?

but
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 02:13 UTC

Longhorn isnt released yet. I cant purchase Longhorn. Why are you mentioning a not-released product that may not be released with that feature (see WinFS/NT Object FS/Cairo) to something that is about to be released that will definately have that feature?

I dont understand, please explain.

@vincent
by leo on Thu 24th Mar 2005 02:14 UTC

Building an infrastructure that uses and supports all of the Direct X9 specification allows for a lot more than just "wobbly windows" as hardware progresses.

As hardware progresses? No effect that's usable on a desktop has so far been dreamed of that uses even a fraction of the power of today's midrange video cards.

Designing a system now, in anticipation of graphical effects which would have to be so ridiculously advanced compared to the current class of ideas, and locking out millions of people in the process, is a mistake.

Do you anticipate Longhorn having any effects requiring vertex shaders? So far the demo's we've seen are nothing more complex than the usual "windows blowing in the wind" type effect.

To the end user, none of this matters anyhow. They will see the effects OS X does now, on cheap video cards, and they will see the effects that Linux does (assuming this goes anywhere) with the same class of hardware, and then they will see that Longhorn does the same effects, but requires a DX 9 level card.

@ Anonymous
by vincent on Thu 24th Mar 2005 02:19 UTC

"I dont understand, please explain."

Ok I'll point it out for you.

See, Leo made a comment comparing the implementation requirements listed for luminocity and the implementation requirements listed for longhorn's UI. Here is the comment since you might have missed it the first two times:

"This is why I bitched so long about the full Longhorn interface probably requiring DirectX9 capable cards. Here we see (also in OS X of course) how it can be done with far less hardware."

I however felt it was necessary to point out that just because an implementation can do it with less system requirements doesn't mean its better. There is nothing showing that a directX9 card is needed for performance -- its quite possible its needed for feature set.

Now, in order for me to actually reply to his post which mentions longhorn, I too have to mention longhorn. See ?

@ Leo
by vincent on Thu 24th Mar 2005 02:22 UTC

"They will see the effects OS X does now, on cheap video cards, and they will see the effects that Linux does (assuming this goes anywhere) with the same class of hardware, and then they will see that Longhorn does the same effects, but requires a DX 9 level card."

You are making a lot of assumptions:

1) OS X, Linux, and Longhorn will all implement the exact same UI eye-candy features.
2) Using the DX9 feature set will not be inherently faster than using the feature set that OSX and Linux use.

Mid-range cards support DX9 currently. Its not a matter of power -- it quite possibly is a matter of features for what they intend to do.

@ Leo too
by Jon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 02:44 UTC

Longhorn has 3 levels of support:
1. normal 2D acceleration : 2 MBs of VRAM and above
2. advanced osx-like acceleration: 16-32 MB of VRAM and above
3. Super acceleration and support: 64 MB and above

@Everyone that was @Leo
by Roguelazer on Thu 24th Mar 2005 02:51 UTC

We don't actually know what Longhorn will require. It's still a couple of years away. So let's not worry too hard about it, eh?

DAMN! Doesn't build for me
by foo on Thu 24th Mar 2005 02:59 UTC

Making all in man
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/esalazar/jhbuild/cvs/gnome2/Xext/man'
make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/esalazar/jhbuild/cvs/gnome2/Xext/man'
make[2]: Entering directory `/home/esalazar/jhbuild/cvs/gnome2/Xext'
if /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile --tag=CC gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -include config.h -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@ -I/home/esalazar/jhbuild/build/include -g -O2 -MT libXext_la-DPMS.lo -MD -MP -MF ".deps/libXext_la-DPMS.Tpo" -c -o libXext_la-DPMS.lo `test -f 'DPMS.c' || echo './'`DPMS.c;
then mv -f ".deps/libXext_la-DPMS.Tpo" ".deps/libXext_la-DPMS.Plo"; else rm -f ".deps/libXext_la-DPMS.Tpo"; exit 1; fi
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -include config.h -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@ -I/home/esalazar/jhbuild/build/include -g -O2 -MT libXext_la-DPMS.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/libXext_la-DPMS.Tpo -c DPMS.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/libXext_la-DPMS.o
gcc: @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@: No such file or directory
make[2]: *** [libXext_la-DPMS.lo] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/esalazar/jhbuild/cvs/gnome2/Xext'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/esalazar/jhbuild/cvs/gnome2/Xext'
make: *** [all] Error 2

What about bad html?
by captainpinko on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:06 UTC

Anyone find it funny that they have the line "Beating the sh*t out of bad apps" on their site when they have such crappy xhtml?

Re: Longhorn requirements
by Richard Fillion on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:06 UTC

2. advanced osx-like acceleration: 16-32 MB of VRAM and above
3. Super acceleration and support: 64 MB and above


I'd be curious to know what "osx-like acceleration" means. CoreImage and CoreVideo seem pretty hardcore to me (they also require a tad more than 32mb video cards), so if "Super acceleration" is better (presumably, since you've ranked it as requiring more hardware), why?

And on-topic: Neat videos, maybe one day I'll be able to stop laughing when my KDE-using friend insists that he has as much eye-candy as my OS X desktop. Not meant as bashing KDE, less eye candy is fine, I just find it funny that people think it can dance like OS X.

Quick primer on xcompmgr
by Eugenia on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:07 UTC

1. Make sure you have Xorg 6.8.2 or 6.8.3.

2. Download this January snapshot of xcompmgr (otherwise you will need to check out the latest code using the ARCH revision control which is not very commonly installed on some distros): http://baghira.sourceforge.net/xcompmgr-2.02.tar.bz2
./configure; make; make install-strip

3. At the bottom of your /etc/X11/xorg.conf file add:

Section "DRI"
Mode 0666
EndSection

Section "Extensions"
Option "Composite" "Enable"
Option "RENDER" "Enable"
EndSection

Add this line to Section "Device" if you have an nvidia card:
Option "RenderAccel" "true"

In the Section "Module" make sure GLcore, dri, glx and xrender are loaded.

4. Make sure your Xorg supports your graphics card in an accelerated 3D mode. Select "DefaultDepth 24" on your xorg.conf file under the Section "Screen".

5. Create a hidden empty file on your home folder called .xcompmgrrc

6. startx

7. Open a terminal and type:
xcompmgr -cCfF -r7 -o.65 -l-10 -t-8 -D7

8. Profit.

Re: Longhorn requirements
by Jon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:08 UTC

>I'd be curious to know what "osx-like acceleration" means.

I meant of 10.2/10.3, where the acceleration was not full.

RE: Quick primer on xcompmgr
by Jon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:11 UTC

9. Enjoy Mac OS X 10.0 and 10.1 in all its glory if your card is not an Intel or an nvidia one (aka "slow").

@ Lumbergh
by David Pastern on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:13 UTC

Quote: "ATI has different priorities than eyecandy for fanboys. The Linux desktop market is miniscule and any responsible business has priorties."

And I urge people not to buy ATI products, or products that use ATI cards. It's the only way to get thru to bastards like this that the Open Source community will not tolerate discrimination. When you start hurting their hip pockets, then they'll start to listen.

Dave

Firstly: What does Linux has to do with this? This is a Gnome project exploiting an experimental X11 extension funded by RedHat, the only ties to Linux here is the money.

Secondly: Comparing the Linux family with with the products OSX and Longhorn is just silly. I can name a few Linux'es that doesn't ship with a GUI at all.

RE: To all the people talking about Linux here
by another user on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:20 UTC

But most (if not some) GNU/Linux distribution that uses GUI. And some uses GNOME. Won't be surprised if a few distro will be incorporating this eyecandy when it is officially released.

And Solaris, and *BSD, and even OSX can run Xorg...
But yes this is a technology that will be availible to Linuxes too. I just don't see the relevance in the xorg vs. win vs. linux thread.

Brad Griffith (IP: ---.client.mchsi.com)
by BR on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:26 UTC

"Or maybe ATI's drivers, which thankfully have the reputation they deserve among linux users, need work. NVidia drivers have been great in Linux for a long time and I won't buy an ATI card until they step it up."

You may want to take a tour of the Nvidia user forums before you break out the pom-poms.

@Richard Fillion
by Chris on Thu 24th Mar 2005 03:26 UTC

KDE has far more eye candy than default OS X. Eye candy is not synonymous with 3d acceleration (which kde has a buggy compositor now). Go look on kde-look.org and notice all the crappy unusable stuff that looks good ;) .

Fedora Core 3
by Dennis J. on Thu 24th Mar 2005 04:03 UTC

Is there any trick involved to get xcompmgr working in Fedora Core 3? I see the files "/usr/X11R6/lib/libXdamage.*" yet xcompmgr insists "No damage extension". Composite gets displayed in the "xdpyinfo" output but not DAMAGES and XFIXES.

:)
by KDE on Thu 24th Mar 2005 04:23 UTC

From those videos it looks quite speced up. I wouldnt mind having that on my desktop ;)

it will be a few more months
by Jon Smirl on Thu 24th Mar 2005 04:34 UTC

The final open source stack will look something like this:

1) framebuffer/DRI device drivers - both will be required
2) mesa with EGL. this is being designed right now.
3) XGL the X sever based on OpenGL.
4) luminosity or some other window manager.
5) Cairo running glitz

Nvidia/ATI will have their own versions of 1/2.

Right now XGL is an X server running inside another X server. You are only seeing technology demos. No one has a standalone OpenGL stack working to run XGL on yet.



Seeing this...
by Morgan on Thu 24th Mar 2005 04:40 UTC

...makes me wish I hadn't sold my GeForce FX 5200. I didn't think I'd need it since I don't do 3D gaming anymore, and now I'm on a Radeon 7000 VE. The Radeon is fine for regular desktop stuff, but I recently tried enabling composite shadows in GNOME and it was too slow to be usable. It looked great though! I guess I'll be saving up for another GeForce FX, maybe a 5500 this time.

RE: Those ATI guys
by klynch on Thu 24th Mar 2005 04:44 UTC

I agree wholeheartedly about ditching ATI. I tried installing Gentoo on my laptop (Radeon Mobility 9000) and let me just say that getting opengl to run was a pain to say the least! Even after I got it to run after hours of config editing, glxgears only ran at a few hundred frames per second.

Yesterday I installed Gentoo on my desktop (Nvidia GeForce2 Ultra) and the only problem was a compile error emerging nvidia-kernel. I simply attempted to emerge the latest masked version and all of my troubles went away.

My next video card I buy will definitely be an Nvidia, even if ATI does attempt to solve their driver problem.

@klynch
by penguin on Thu 24th Mar 2005 04:59 UTC

If you don't like hours of messing with a driver: don't run Linux and for heavens sake, don't run Gentoo. It's kiddies with this mentality that make people label sects of a community as zealots. It was originally made for hackers to have fun, and sticking a pretty GUI on top of that doesn't really change that fact. Deep down inside, Linux is ugly like some fat geek's buttox. Grandma still isn't supposed to install her leenucks and get on AOL.

All of that said, by all means have some fun and share it with folks! It's useful, it can be stable, and it's just plain awesome. Why complain?

The bottom line: it's wrong to expect any of it to work. You'd be lucky if ATi donated an hour of their time by paying a 16 year old dork minimum wage to make your driver. We're obviously quite a bit more lucky than that given the support that FOSS has.

Can I just have GL without X?
by prok on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:06 UTC

Eye candy is cool and all but it's just window dressing as far as I'm concerned. You know what would really be useful? Hardware accelerated OpenGL without X. I maintain software that does parallel rendering on linux clusters and lemme tell you something: dealing with X on a cluster is a pain. I'm actually a bit shocked that this doesn't exist.

@penguin
by klynch on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:11 UTC

Why are you being so harsh? Just because I am using Gentoo doesn't mean I want to be spending hours getting something that shouldn't take that long to work. It's not like the hardware is some obtuse piece of hardware that only 5 people in the world have.

Ok, so the goal of Gentoo is to have fun. Replace "Gentoo" with "Fedora" and will you have the same response? Drivers are drivers no matter what distro it is. I do have fun making my system run smoothly and to my liking, but taking that amount of time to install video drivers shouldn't be that difficult, especially when nVidia can prove how simple it should be.

And why exactly is it wrong to expect it to work? I paid them for their video card, so I expect it to work. I won't complain if they give closed drivers. I won't complain if features like TV-Out don't fully work. I just want the video card to do it's primary task.

If nVidia can make it happen, why can't ATI? All that I am saying is that I won't be supporting ATI because of their driver history.

RE: @Jon
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:15 UTC

Rayiner Hashem is right, EVAS had this years ago.

I witnessed EVAS's power with my very own eyes as Rasterman demo'ed it at one of the local Linux Expo's a few years back. It was the freaking coolest thing I ever saw running on X11.

Too bad more don't use it.

Wow, I'm dumb
by prok on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:16 UTC

In response to my own post about using graphics hardware without X: The wheels are already turning. Thank Jeebus.

@vincent (IP: ---.client.comcast.net)
by Andrewg on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:16 UTC

Mid-range cards support DX9 currently. Its not a matter of power -- it quite possibly is a matter of features for what they intend to do.

I believe that one of the needed features is the ability to draw bezier curves. I think DX9 cards can do that DX8 card cannot.

@klynch
by penguin on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:18 UTC

Actually I would expect more problems in fedora, that's just me. It's still out of the goodness of their hearts to provide any support. They do make sure their card that you buy works in the enviornment that they intended it to be released on, be it OS X or Windows.

Personally, I find it more than satisfying to see the Xorg folks comming up with what they do have given ATi's support or NVIDIA's suppoort. In good style, it doesn't surprise me that they've come up with the eyecandy that they've got running off of such a simple machine. (What was it, an Intel box somebody quoted the demos comming off of?) You're running off an OS that isn't guarenteed, that isn't really supported.

I would expect my SUsE desktop to run to specs that SUsE promises, never more than that. I would expect to spend a few hours tinkering with any given item in Gentoo. The Gentoo devs say themselves that you shouldn't use it if you expect things to just work in a production enviornment.

I'm only harsh because this mentality that Linux is a product and it should work in ____ ways taking ____ amount of time to setup seems to be spreading like wildfire. It's sick.

RE: Why so much negativity
by klynch on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:29 UTC

I agree that eyecandy can be a good thing, especially when it is not heavily dependent on the power of the video card (as evident from the i810). However, I am curious to know how much of a burden this is to the system processor and memory. As long as they increase is not outrageous, this is A Good Thing.

@ Eugenia and Dennis J. (IP: ---.dip.t-dialin.net) -
by finalzone on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:33 UTC

Thanks Eugenia. Following the instruction, I was able to enable Composite. However, this step:

"In the Section "Module" make sure GLcore, dri, glx and xrender are loaded. ", you don't need to load both GLcore and dri if you already have glx.

The test is succesful on Fedora Core 3.

@Dennis J. (IP: ---.dip.t-dialin.net) -
You forgot to exit X in order to enable Composite. Switch to console mode with Ctrl+Alt+F1, log as root or user with sudo enable, do init 3 then init 5. Don't forget to log out in console mode. Hope it helps

Comment about Composite
by finalzone on Thu 24th Mar 2005 05:43 UTC

It looks like OSX environment. It appears to run smoothly without performance hit. I can't wait to see what future distros will unleash. Hopefully there will be an option to enable them as Composite appears to be stable.

@prok
by Jeremy on Thu 24th Mar 2005 06:10 UTC

mesa-solo will allow for full opengl acceleration without X i believe.

Intel chipsets?
by Deb Ian on Thu 24th Mar 2005 06:21 UTC

What about Intel video cards? I've experienced the bad of both NVIDIA and ATI, but if the eye candy can be had with onboard intel video chipsets, where are the expansion cards? How well do intell X11 drivers support GL?

RE:Intel chipsets?
by Rapsey on Thu 24th Mar 2005 06:28 UTC

If you read the article you would know that those videos were run on an intel chipset

@AndrewG
by leo on Thu 24th Mar 2005 06:32 UTC

I believe that one of the needed features is the ability to draw bezier curves. I think DX9 cards can do that DX8 card cannot.

Really? Seems odd. Bezier curves are not complex or computationally intensive to draw. Got some more info on this?

RE: Intel chipsets?
by Deb Ian on Thu 24th Mar 2005 06:32 UTC

Rapsey> If you read the article you would know that those videos were run on an intel chipset

Yes, that is why I was asking: "where are the expansion cards? How well do intell (sp) X11 drivers support GL?"

Well
by Duffman on Thu 24th Mar 2005 06:54 UTC

1) They are only catch up MacosX because longhorn is not release.

2) Why linux users always say that eye candy effects are useless and for "noob" when they don't have it, and why they are working for an X server that allow those effects.

results
by tobaccofarm on Thu 24th Mar 2005 07:33 UTC

Instead of ceo's defending their shares online now we actually see some results.Those videos are nonetheless quite impressive to say the least.

RE:Well
by lu_zero on Thu 24th Mar 2005 08:06 UTC

Many are using lightweight wm just because they are more productive with that. When I'm using osx I disable most of the graphic effects. Some people likes FEATURES, not eyecandy (eg: I can't stand Metacity not being able to maximize windows in just one directions and other features I may consider wrongly needed to call an application a good wm)

demo videos
by tc on Thu 24th Mar 2005 08:25 UTC

I think they just shook the camera.

Real hard.

;)

gamma correct arithmetics
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 09:56 UTC

EVAS, RENDER, etc.. all perform wrong arithmetics on colors. They all assume RGB is brightness so add, div, etc direct on precorrected values. it is fast but wrong. You must do gamma convertion, do what you need ( mul/div/add ...) and do inverse gamma correction exactly before write to frame buffer.

evas
by HelloWorld82 on Thu 24th Mar 2005 09:56 UTC

There was someone mentioning evas ...
I remember that article about evas, and the video looked really cool.
Wouldn't it be possible to use evas instead of cairo? Where are the differences between both ?
(This is a question, it's not to start a flameware cairo vs evas).

v whoa
by Nick Borrego on Thu 24th Mar 2005 10:03 UTC
RE:Well
by . on Thu 24th Mar 2005 10:08 UTC

lu_zero,

Metacity can maximize windows in one direction.

Re: Why so much negativity?
by digitaleon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 10:43 UTC

From: Steve Block (desm.qwest.net)
This is incredibly progress compared to what I have ever seen with X. I can't make use of it (Mac user and I've no plans to switch), but I can appreciate it.

Who says? I have no doubt that GL-enhanced XOrg bridged to QX (as the current XFree and XOrg releases are bridged to Quartz) will be available once it becomes 'mainstream', thus giving you similar painting performance for XWindows applications as for native Mac OS X ones (provided you run it within OS X).

Smooth graphics rendering can really make a difference in users' perception of the speed of a computer.

Agreed. As it does the user 'experience' of said computer.

RE:Well
by cmit on Thu 24th Mar 2005 12:35 UTC

"When I'm using osx I disable most of the graphic effects."
When I am using OSX I disable all the graphics and switch to the shell. lol

@AdamW
by foljs on Thu 24th Mar 2005 12:40 UTC

This version of X.org and this window manager are available for anyone now, legally. Seth has step-by-step instructions on how to download and use them. So how does that count as 'catching up' to a product which we can't legally use for another, at least, year?

Er, some developers and skilled UNIX alphaware compilers being able to use things alpha, not integrated, demo of a composite manager does not count as "anyone can use it".

Tiger will retail next month, and Panther already does more of this, stably (sic) and more intergated.

Even when Longhorn gets out (2006? 2007?) this still won't be readily available for linux desktops.

RE: Well
by human on Thu 24th Mar 2005 12:51 UTC

"2) Why linux users always say that eye candy effects are useless and for "noob" when they don't have it, and why they are working for an X server that allow those effects."

It's because there is not a single group of people who all think the same called 'Linux users'.

This is a little off topic but...

If you look at ten random computers running Linux, they will be running different distros, with different desktops, and perhaps even on different architectures. The diversity of choice is astonishing.
Some pure console users even refuse to use bash as a console because it's too 'bloated', preferring sh or csh.
Others are using LookingGlass with a full 3d accelerated desktop.

And yet, I see the same comments assuming that there is some consensus and groupthink going on. I find the opposite to be true, and am puzzled as to why people assume all Linux users think the same way.

Composite, Damages, XFixes
by Dennis J. on Thu 24th Mar 2005 13:08 UTC

@finalzone:
Thanks for trying to help. I did restart X properly and the Composite extension is running (fglrx reports it has deactivated DRI due to the enabled composite and xdpyinfo lists it too) but Damages and XFixes are not. I even put the following in the config file:

Section "Extensions"
Option "Composite" "Enable"
Option "XFIXES" "Enable"
Option "DAMAGE" "Enable"
EndSection

and in the logfile I get:

...
(**) Extension "DAMAGE" is enabled
...
(II) Initializing built-in extension DAMAGE
...

yet xdpyinfo doesn't list Damage and xcompmgr and luminocity complain that they need the Damage extension. I'm really puzzled about this.

when?
by neutron on Thu 24th Mar 2005 13:25 UTC

I find it really curious that nobody has asked it before:

When can we see this awesome technology in an ordinary distro, like Fedora or Ubuntu?

Is it in the timeframe of gnome 2.12 or is it more realistic that we have it in 2.14?

Thnx!

hmm..
by helf on Thu 24th Mar 2005 13:34 UTC

I wonder if itll work on a my p2 450/voodoo 3 agp/384mb ram machine.. would b ecool if it did.

@Marcelo
by foljs on Thu 24th Mar 2005 13:41 UTC

"Considering that Xorg with Composite/Xcompmgr is buggy as hell (and I can't imagine how buggy is the new GL server + Cairo), yes, by the time Longhorn will be out maybe this stuff will be usable."

Yes, Longhorn has no bugs and its development is not late...


Longhorn is late, yes. But it will be delivered sooner than usable, integrated Linux hardware accelerated compositing, even if is ships at 2007. Do you believe the mess of several uncordinated projects (Cairo, Xmopmgr, Xorg etc) will be integrated fully any time soon? And what with the drivers not all supporting proper OpenGL accelaration et al.

Also, while Longhorn will have bugs, and many, none or very very very few of its bugs will have to do with compositing. For users, compositing will be a non-issue, it will just work. Minor glitches could exist, but nothing major regarding compositing, hardware accelaration etc. It's just a part of an API that MS can't afford to get wrong, and severe testing will ensure it is not wrong.

@penguin
by comper on Thu 24th Mar 2005 13:47 UTC

Deep down inside, Linux is ugly like some fat geek's buttox. Grandma still isn't supposed to install her leenucks and get on AOL.

All of that said, by all means have some fun and share it with folks! It's useful, it can be stable, and it's just plain awesome. Why complain?


Nicely put.

Linux is ugly because geeks neither know, nor care about beauty (design, fashion, etc) except in the form of abstract "beautiful" maths or code and such.

You only have to look at how geeks and programmers are dressed to know that this people cannot possibly design anything pretty.

It would be nice if the Linux community had designers and illustrators that could help (it helps Mac and Windows -many designers use windows). Sadly, it doesn't with the exception of a handful.

(Yep, some geeks use Gimp et al and consider themselves "designers", some even land designing jobs. But of the *real* designers -i.e not people making some lame websites and pizza delivery pamplets, people that design book covers, cd covers, magazines, etc- I doubt even one used Linux as a work platform.

@lu_zero
by foljs on Thu 24th Mar 2005 13:48 UTC

Some people likes FEATURES, not eyecandy

Which just goes to show that you are a working drone with no aesthetics whatsoever.

Re: when?
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 13:59 UTC

Is it in the timeframe of gnome 2.12 or is it more realistic that we have it in 2.14?

I think this is the stuff we'll see in Gnome 3.0 and KDE 4.0, not before.

@foljs
by Simon on Thu 24th Mar 2005 14:06 UTC

Cairo, xcompmgr and Xorg not integrated? What the hell are you talking about? They already are, for heaven's sake!
xcompmgr is not meant to be a finished product, it's a testbed. The whole idea of the Composite-extension is to let the window manager take care of it, like Luminocity does. If that's not integration, I don't understand what it is you want integrated.

The problem is, this is very new technology in the X11 world. It's much easier to do on Windows and OS X since they are free of the client-server model, but we have to take different approaches. And once the Composite extension in X.org matures, there are no obstacles. This is technology that works here, now, today. It will certainly be stable long before 2007. A lot of people use it with great stability right now.

The non-accelerated drivers are not an issue, there have long been software-rendering support for OpenGL on Linux. It's much slower, so people without hardware support would probably avoid it, but the vast majority of Linux users using NVIDIA, ATI and Intel cards will be able to run this very smoothly.

Once the Luminocity stuff gets implemented in Metactiy, compositing will be a non-issue for Linux users as well. And I can't wait. I just tried a Mac OS X desktop the other day, it's REALLY useful! Especially the Exposť window management. That thing rocks! A very good example of how this stuff can increase productivity and provide a much more effective GUI environment.

- Simon

@ simon
by helf on Thu 24th Mar 2005 14:18 UTC

is there accelerated support for the older 3dfx cards like the voodoo3 ? even beos has 3d acceleration for them.. so im assuming yes.. think this would work ok on one? if not ill have to wait till i get all the part for my gaming tower together.. i currently have an nvidia 6800 256 sitting here crying ;)

Eyecandy / Features
by Me It's Me on Thu 24th Mar 2005 14:24 UTC

These video show eyecandy... maybe some think it's useless but try to understand what is possible... the swinging windows are neat but it's the live pagers that show whats possible why wouln't you want to monitor what goes on live on your virtual desktops without the performance hit?... and I think eyecandy can be effective when used correctly... like toolbars that are transparent when not in use eg. office on OSX. This is technology that will mature and be a part of everyday computing.

@comper
by mattb on Thu 24th Mar 2005 14:44 UTC

"Yep, some geeks use Gimp et al and consider themselves "designers", some even land designing jobs. But of the *real* designers -i.e not people making some lame websites and pizza delivery pamplets, people that design book covers, cd covers, magazines, etc- I doubt even one used Linux as a work platform. "

talk about insulting. how come both gnome AND kde have more attractive iconsets, hell, are just plain more attractive then windows xp? how come windows xp, made by a company that should have the money to hire someone BETTER then those washed up artists (like jimmac), looks like a teletubby exploded on the desktop?

@folgs
by mattb on Thu 24th Mar 2005 14:51 UTC

Longhorn is late, yes. But it will be delivered sooner than usable, integrated Linux hardware accelerated compositing, even if is ships at 2007. Do you believe the mess of several uncordinated projects (Cairo, Xmopmgr, Xorg etc) will be integrated fully any time soon? And what with the drivers not all supporting proper OpenGL accelaration et al.

well, i do believe they "will be integrated soon" because they already are. xorg != xfree86. the drivers not supporting ogl will need a better software emulation layer then exists now, but that will most definately be done by 2k7, and the vast majority of users that would want this sort of thing anyways will own an nvidia or ati card. (which both have ogl support)

Also, while Longhorn will have bugs, and many, none or very very very few of its bugs will have to do with compositing. For users, compositing will be a non-issue, it will just work. Minor glitches could exist, but nothing major regarding compositing, hardware accelaration etc. It's just a part of an API that MS can't afford to get wrong, and severe testing will ensure it is not wrong.


dude, "severe testing" has yet to make any product in the history of software development bug free. i have yet to see the game that launches and has no "it doesnt work with my vid card" complaints. expect avalon to be usable by 2k7-2k8. i wouldnt be suprised if this is great by the end of the year on most major vid cards, and it goes typical linux incremental improvements from there.

@lu_zero
by mattb on Thu 24th Mar 2005 14:53 UTC

some people want FEATURES, not eyecandy

christ, you really have gotta be pretty dumb. linux is the king of features, it has more features then any other os ive used, its the nonexistant or god awful interfaces that make it so much less attractive to most people.

@me it's me
by mattb on Thu 24th Mar 2005 14:57 UTC

forget that attractive interfaces are more efficient then utilitarian ones (google for don normans emotional design), forget that stuff like expose wouldnt be possible before on linux, and isnt possible on windows, forget the fact that a vecoctorized desktop means resolution independance (when you bring the res up, stuff looks better, not smaller).

people here saying that this is pointless are either extremely dumb, or just dont know what they are talking about.

well I got it up and running....
by karl on Thu 24th Mar 2005 15:13 UTC

I followed the directions posted in the blog and got it up and running (woohoo!). Aparently the API is undergoing some changes(who woulda thunk)-so when I built it I kept getting the same error messages mentioned by 'foo', ie. missing @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@....

So not knowing anything about the code I just sat down I tried to do some good ole pattern recognition- I noticed some files referenced :

-DXTHREADS

the @ symbol in a makefile, AFAIK, just symbolizes some library which was not resolved in the autogen.sh/configure process. So I simply edited the respective makefiles and swapped @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@ for -DXTHREADS and everything compiled fine with little annoying errors about some important change (!). Anyway it compiled and runs here...actually rather neat...unfortunately it doesn't run quite as fast and smooth on my machine as seen in those demos....(2.4 GHz Celeron/GF5700)...but not much slower, much less smooth...only a whee bit....



Also just to note I have been running xcompmgr fulltime for about 2 months with very few problems..older gtk apps (xmms, mplayer) are the only real sources of problems nowadays....It's still not quite there-(surprise!)-but everything works-it's kind of funny how anything on your screen which is being dynamically updated (ie, the system monitor panel applet, or a terminal which is being updated) shows through any opengl apps running in full screen mode. Made the mistake one time of lauching enemy-territory ina terminal window with xcompmgr running-kind of wierd seeing a black rectangular box showing through while running e-t...hehe...



Don't buy ATI.
by Martijn on Thu 24th Mar 2005 15:20 UTC

The last couple of years I always bought ATI cards, but their drivers are really crappy, so yesterday I bought myself a brand new Nvidia 6800 GT card and it works great with composite!

So Linux users, buy yourself a Nvidia ,ATI is really no good for linuxusers.

RE: well I got it up and running....
by GaMMa on Thu 24th Mar 2005 16:51 UTC

karl I'm getting an error trying to build xserver and it's complaining about @XTHREADS_LIBS@ what'd you end up putting there?

Timefame
by John Nilsson on Thu 24th Mar 2005 16:56 UTC

Seeing the massive overhaul of desktop concepts that is planned for Gnome 3.0, I'll guess this will be in Gnome long before 3.0 is even started.

My guess is 2.12 for cairo and som of the xcompmgr effects. Luminocity will probably leak some features into the 2.14 release. 2.16 will probably be 3.0 but that would mean that they will go long over the 6month release schedule.

ATI vs. NV on Linux
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 16:57 UTC

Ok, sorry, all of you saying "don't buy ATI" are weak.

All ATI cards up to the Radeon 9200 are supported by the DRI. There are a couple (important) aspects to those cards for which ATI didn't provide docs, such as HyperZ and fragment programs. HyperZ has been reverse engineered and implemented in the DRI drivers. Fragment programs have been 90% reverse engineered, and are one developer's pet project. He will almost certainly have them finished soon.

r300+ chipsets are being very quickly reverse engineered. So, I recommend this: Either buy cards <= Radeon 9200, and write ATI & NV and tell them that you would have bought a $200 card, except they didn't provide free, complete docs for them, or buy a card > Radeon 9200 and help with the reverse engineering. (Or, if you own an NV card get off your butt and start reverse engineering.)

A modern graphics card is basically a second, specialized CPU... and what sort of fool would buy a CPU from AMD or Intel without proper documentation? No one, other than your Packard-Bell using grandma. Get a clue, and don't buy undocumented hardware unless you intend to reverse engineer it... no matter what lame "not our IP" excuses the companies might make, and no matter how fast the undocumented card is!!!

The DRI desperately needs a new vram memory manager, and that is being worked on. After than, the drivers are going to rock. (They already do.) Don't bitch, help.

p.s. Even Windows users should be pushing for Free Software drivers from the card manufacturers... I don't know why you trust benchmarks without them.

RE: GaMMa
by karl on Thu 24th Mar 2005 17:33 UTC

I only saw a problem as regards:
@XTHREADS_CFLAGS@

not:
@XTHREADS_LIBS@


I won't even pretend to understand how the software works. All I did was do some basic pattern recognition and guessed-and guessed right!-which is more a matter of luck than knowledge.

I cannot tell you:

a) the difference between @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@ and -DXTHREADS
b) the difference between @XTHREADS_LIBS@ and @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@

my working assumption is that when you see a gcc error message, or a Makefile, referencing somthething surrounded by @ symbols, that this means that the autogen.sh/configure process failed to resolve whatever is found between the @ symbols.

I was building with jhbuild and got the @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@ error as reported by gcc. jhbuild offered me a choice of options as to what to do next. I chose '4' which dropped me back to a shell in the working directory where the compile failed. I then looked around in the configure file to see if I could see what was going on-somewhere I saw a reference to -DXTHREAD and thought, hmmm, that naming convention isn't purely coincidental is it? so I opened up the Makefile in a text editor(nano) and searched for. Sure enough I found 2 references to @XTHREADS_LIBS@. I then replaced each occurence with -DXTHREAD and then exited (exit)the shell landing back in the jhbuild menu and chose 1 to restart the compilation. Some of the packages consist of mulitple subdirectories each with their own Makefile- xserver for example- in which case I edited each of the Makefiles making the substitution described above. Luckily I only had to edit and change about 6 or 7 Makefiles total...

I imagine you could just switch into your JHBUILD_ROOT_PATH, which by me was /root/cvs/gnome2 and simply do something like the following(note I haven't tried this-so don't shoot me if it doesn't work)

find . -name 'Makefile' -exec sed -i 's/@XTHREADS_CFLAGS@/-DXTHREADS/g' {} ;

find . -name 'Makefile' -exec sed -i 's/@XTHREADS_LIBS@/-DXTHREADS/g' {} ;

notes:
1) not sure about my sed syntax here....don't know if @ or _ is a special charachter....
2) I know this works for @XTHREADS_CFLAGS@ -but I am not sure about @XTHREADS_LIBS@-try it-if it doesn't compile I was wrong ;)


RE: GaMMa
by karl on Thu 24th Mar 2005 17:38 UTC

oh and a little foot note about my last post...

it seems as if the site strips away 'back slashes' ie. the opposite of / (forward slashes)

Insert one of these 'back slashes' prior to the ; at the end of the two command lines I posted above-otherwise BASH won't like you ;)

and a last note:
by karl on Thu 24th Mar 2005 17:42 UTC

If you don't want to try the hack I listed above wait a couple of days and maybe this stuff will be resolved in cvs....


oh and if any of the readers here, perhaps one of the devs ;) , actually know what causes this error, or what the difference is between @XTHREADS_LIBS@/@XTHREADS_CFLAGS@/-DXTHREADS is, please, by all means, let us know ;)


RE: ATI vs. NV on Linux
by Roy on Thu 24th Mar 2005 17:52 UTC

r300+ chipsets are being very quickly reverse engineered

Ummm. The 9700 (first R300 chipset) was released in late 2002. What exactly is your definition of "quickly"? I bought a Ti4200 in late 2002 and have had good accelerated drivers since I bought it. Yes, these are closed source drivers. If you must have open source drivers, don't buy either ATI or nvidia. Neither company actually supports open source drivers anymore. ATI used to, but that is in the past. I think Intel actually has the best record right now with open source video drivers (not sure where Matrox stands nowadays).

cairo in gnome
by Soap on Thu 24th Mar 2005 18:31 UTC

Cairo is not going into Gnome. Cairo is being integrated into gtk+, infact is it already in Gtk+ head. Cairo will use glitz for opengl hw accel. on most computers.

moving windows
by orfanotna on Thu 24th Mar 2005 18:49 UTC

So, if I don't really care about jittery windows and other eye-candy, and I just want windows that move reasonably smoothly and don't leave trails all over the place on my i810, is this going to help?

RE: ATI vs. NV on Linux
by Anonymous on Thu 24th Mar 2005 19:15 UTC

Ummm. The 9700 (first R300 chipset) was released in late 2002. What exactly is your definition of "quickly"?

My definition of "quickly" is "moving fast." What other relevant definition could there be?

The r300 reverse engineering project started in the Fall, roughly. They've been making steady, incredible progress since then.

They still have a lot of hard work to do, though, and for some people this has been their introduction to reverse engineering. (The r400s are very similar to the r300s from a driver standpoint, so both are effectively being reverse engineered in parallel.)

And, yes, Intel does seem to be the best right now about providing documentation to Free graphics driver developers. However, many people don't have the option of installing agp or pci Intel graphics cards (maybe i915 ones are out that I missed) so I omitted them... but they're great for laptops. (Intel provided fragment program documentation that others have withheld.)

@comper
by Around it goes on Thu 24th Mar 2005 20:13 UTC

"how come windows xp, made by a company that should have the money to hire someone BETTER then those washed up artists (like jimmac), looks like a teletubby exploded on the desktop?"

Yep, that's what it always comes down to. Big ass company like MS and the only reason they're so prevalent is they got to the scene first. Massive Windows division and they're still "borrowing" from Apple.

@Around it goes (IP: ---.dialup.mindspring.com)
by mattb on Thu 24th Mar 2005 20:40 UTC

actually, apple got to the scene first. ibm/microsoft managed to gain ground after a series of supendously expensive machines comming out of apple (lisa, first mac). what many people dont realise is that microsoft has never competed (until now with linux) on the strength of their product, they competed by undercutting the competition, while offering solutions that were "good enough". the truley ironic thing is that is the way that linux is spreading now. microsoft is being forced to justify the cost of their product for the first time ever, which is why we have seen so much improvement in the last few years.

my point with that statement is that the origional poster seems to be talking about 1990 linux. things have changed alot, and i think you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesnt think that most of the art in linux is inferior to that of windows. we have some very talented artists now. look at the oo.o iconset jimmac did, and compare it to words. compare the crystal iconset with the windows one. compare plastik to luna (personally, i have never been a fan of industrial, but hopefully gnome will be getting something a little nicer as the default look sometime in the near future).

whoops
by mattb on Thu 24th Mar 2005 20:42 UTC

"and i think you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesnt think that most of the art in linux is inferior "

should be

"and i think you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that most of the art in linux is inferior "

@orfanotna
by plin on Thu 24th Mar 2005 22:54 UTC

just run xcompmgr without any option.

Trolltech on board, too
by Eike Hein on Thu 24th Mar 2005 23:08 UTC

Trolltech has just hired well-known KDE hacker Zack Rusin to work on X11, Mesa and fbdev.

RE: ATI vs. NV on Linux
by Roy on Thu 24th Mar 2005 23:14 UTC

Yes, they've made progress lately, but by the time they have a good driver for R3XX/R4XX, R5XX will be out with a completely different architecture. Reverse engineered drivers are always going to have this lag problem. The simple truth is that most users don't care if their drivers are open source and the graphics companies aren't loosing sleep over this issue.

ATI's closed source drivers SHOULD be a lot better than they are. This would be excusable if they provided specs, but they don't anymore. At least nvidia puts significant effort into their Linux drivers. Supporting ATI because somebody was able to figure out the R3XX architecture in spite of ATI basically rewards ATI for its non-commitment to Linux.

turn it off
by Sodapop on Fri 25th Mar 2005 02:43 UTC

As long as I can turn it all off, go for it I say.

Re: comper [adding to penguin's description of linux]
by Marc J. Driftmeyer on Fri 25th Mar 2005 10:08 UTC

You wrote:


Deep down inside, Linux is ugly like some fat geek's buttox. Grandma still isn't supposed to install her leenucks and get on AOL.

All of that said, by all means have some fun and share it with folks! It's useful, it can be stable, and it's just plain awesome. Why complain?


Nicely put.

Linux is ugly because geeks neither know, nor care about beauty (design, fashion, etc) except in the form of abstract "beautiful" maths or code and such.

You only have to look at how geeks and programmers are dressed to know that this people cannot possibly design anything pretty.

It would be nice if the Linux community had designers and illustrators that could help (it helps Mac and Windows -many designers use windows). Sadly, it doesn't with the exception of a handful.

(Yep, some geeks use Gimp et al and consider themselves "designers", some even land designing jobs. But of the *real* designers -i.e not people making some lame websites and pizza delivery pamplets, people that design book covers, cd covers, magazines, etc- I doubt even one used Linux as a work platform.


Clearly you never worked at NeXT nor Apple. Quite a large number of engineers are stylish in wardrobe and other areas of life outside of writing eloquent code. And that includes mechanical engineers, astrophysicists, electrical engineers, linguists, so on and so forth who all share high aesthetics for style on both sides of the Interface Paradigm.

Perhaps that is why we are all considered elitist snobs who worked at NeXT.

Being that I'm writing this on a PC running Debian Sid/KDE and upstairs is a laptop with OS X I can say that both OS's have room to improve and continue to progress.

When KDE releases a stringent UI Guideline document I look forward to seeing the improvements. With this it will push OS X to continue to improve as well.

Competition is great.

Just bought an Nvidia!
by Halo on Fri 25th Mar 2005 18:08 UTC

Just upgraded to an nvidia 5700 from ATI 9200 I know it is not much but Now everything is flying with the xcomposite changes compare to when I used ATI.

KDE support for xcomposite surpasses gnome at the moment, I have both right now (KDE 3.4 and gnome 2.8.2 on Gentoo).

ATI has the benefit on running on lower watts, but the lack of good drivers in linux is not helping them.

I got a NVidia quadro FX 4000 at work which does around 12000 fps (glxgears) on SuSe 9.2... The first thing I do is to get the KDE 3.4 and composite thingie working on it. I think beside nice looks composite adds to efficiency. You just need to get used to it and find your ways with it.

It is still little buggy but with the speed Xorg is moving I think Microsoft is going to have a very tough competitive in a year or 2.

Just tried the Composite extension...
by a nun, he moos on Fri 25th Mar 2005 20:00 UTC

It was very nice, but unstable on my setup. I'll try it again when I've got a new version of X and the nvidia driver installed. Otherwise, though, it looks very good.

nice, that's all
by anonymous on Fri 25th Mar 2005 22:07 UTC

saw it now in kde 3.4 on slackware 10.1, xorg 6.8.2, p4-2.4ghz and nividia6600gt-agp

it's nice but not very useful.

I created a new user for kde, so I can stick with xfce/rox on my main account.

I'm really happy with xfce/rox, it's damn fast :-)